1. Field of the Invention
The invention pertains to apparatus and methods related to the movement of international cargo in containerized structures. More particularly, the invention relates to tracking and security of ISO compliant intermodal shipping containers.
2. Description of Related Art
There are an estimated 15 million intermodal shipping containers moving throughout the world on a daily basis. Nine million of these containers arrive at U.S. ports annually, raising significant security issues. If a weapon of mass destruction were delivered to a port in the U.S., the cost to the domestic economy could reach $1 trillion.
Security applications, such as cargo tracking are growing in importance. The worldwide ocean-going freight transportation infrastructure is the cornerstone of the global economic well-being and has been in crisis since Sep. 11, 2001. Domestic shipping via the Marine Transportation System (MTS) totals over $850 B in cargo annually and contributes $2 T to the U.S. gross domestic product. The current volume of domestic maritime shipping is expected to double over the next 20 years. International maritime shipping is expected to triple over the same time period. Many port facilities are under economic stress from several fronts, including antiquated technology, environmental restrictions, just-in-time manufacturing practices, overlapping federal/state/local jurisdictions, and the lack of basic technological infrastructure to orchestrate a global network for intermodal asset security monitoring and tracking. Land competition and environmental regulations will further restrict the geographic expansion of current port facilities. Further, the information systems for managing the supply chain still largely depend on manual data entry processes.
In addition to concerns about MTS economic inefficiencies, a renewed emphasis on homeland security in the U.S. is evident. Terrorist threats have brought about a new reality in the MTS. Attacks will likely focus on economic means to effect change in the modern world. One need only look to the open movement of containerized cargo to find simple, effective, and efficient means of large-scale economic damage. The destruction of a few key ports could bring our economy to a complete halt and cripple the nation in a matter of weeks. The result is a conflict between efficiency and security in the port system that supports the MTS.
A well-documented need exists for technology solutions to increase efficiency and security in the MTS. In 2004, 9 million containers entered the U.S. via the MTS. U.S. Customs inspects less than 5 percent of these containers manually, relying on intelligence to “profile” containers. The Coast Guard and U.S. Customs do not have the resources to inspect each container entering the U.S. Therefore, investment in appropriate tracking and monitoring technology will be needed to increase security and economic efficiency. Neither efficiency nor security can be sacrificed. Therefore, tracking and monitoring technologies must be developed to provide greater efficiency and at the same time secure the global supply chain.
The ability to monitor conditions and location in real-time has a number of insurance ramifications. The insurers of ships and cargo are critically interested in loss and theft of cargo via security breaches and fraud. For the 12 months prior to Nov. 30, 2004, $700 billion in cargo was shipped via the MTS. Some private industry estimates of losses overboard, damage, or outright theft are as high as seven to ten percent of all containers annually, as high as $40 billion per year losses in the supply chain. Insurance companies finance a great deal of this expense, and in turn, pass along these losses as premiums and retained losses to cargo owners, carriers, and ultimately the consumer. Carriers, cargo owners and the manufacturers absorb the remaining losses that are again ultimately passed along to end consumers. Entities in the distribution chain would be expected to receive a lower insurance premium for shipping through a more secure service provider.
Current products on the commercial market for logistics applications and container security offer little security. Electronic seals, which are wireless enabled versions of mechanical seals that have been used for decades, do not provide the means to secure the container.
Various types of seals have been described including: Swift U.S. Pat. No. 5,116,091; Tuttle U.S. Pat. Nos. 5,406,263 and 5,831,531; Wilk U.S. Pat. No. 5,528,228; White U.S. Pat. No. 5,755,175; Gagnon U.S. Pat. No. 5,939,982; Kadner U.S. Pat. No. 6,069,563; Wilhelm U.S. Pat. No. 6,464,269; Fuehrer U.S. Pat. No. 6,513,842; Palzkill U.S. Pat. No. 6,846,024; Pirnie U.S. Pat. No. 6,928,843; and Moreno U.S. Pat. Nos. 7,044,512 and 7,178,841. Generally seals focus on detecting tampering rather than providing true locking mechanisms. At best the seal serves as a deterrent and at worst it potentially conveys a false sense of security. Several studies have examined seals and found they offer little or no security in their current forms, only serving a deterrent function.
Various types of locks have been described, including: VanderWyde U. S. Pat. No. 4,422,313; Yulkowski U.S. Pat. No. 6,259,352; Strodtman U.S. Pat. No. 6,581,419; and Brown U.S. Pat. No. 6,581,425. These solutions tend to focus on permanent retrofit/installation of hardware to ISO standard containers but raise expensive and substantial installation and maintenance issues. Containers are leased; shippers have little or no ability to implement these solutions. Container owners/lessors have little or no incentive to implement them because it represents a net cost to operations.
In U.S. Pat. No. 6,364,584, Access Bar for a Shipping Container, Taylor describes a system that secures both doors at the same time and uses the corner posts as a “gravity” locking mechanism.
A locking and tracking system as taught by Galley in U.S. Pat. No. 6,975,224, Reusable Self Container Electronic Device Providing In-Transit Cargo Visibility, attaches to the door latch and would require two devices (one for each door) to work.
Various types of tracking systems have been described, including the following: Camhi, in U.S. Pat. No. 5,825,283, System for the Security and Auditing of Persons and Property, discloses a vehicle and personnel tracking system and geofence applications but does not mention shipping containers or the locking of such. Radican, in U.S. Pat. No. 6,148,291, Container Inventory Monitoring Methods and Systems, discloses an inventory system for shipping containers but does not mention security or the locking of such containers. Carson, in U.S. Pat. No. 6,577,921, Container Tracking System, discloses localized tracking within storage and transfer yards without mention of security or the locking of such containers. Ghaffari, in U.S. Pat. No. 6,662,068, Real Time Total Asset Visibility System, discloses a tracking system for cargo but does not mention shipping containers, or security or locking of such containers. Lareau, in U.S. Pat. No. 6,972,682, Monitoring and Tracking of Assets by Utilizing Wireless Communications, discloses wireless tracking and triangulation of container location but does not mention security or locking of shipping containers. Shafer, in U.S. Pat. No. 7,165,722, Method and System for Communicating with Identification Tags discloses IP addressing of RFID tags without mention of securing or locking of such containers. Twitchell, in U.S. Pat. No. 7,221,668, Communications within Population of Wireless Transceivers Based on Common Designation, discloses the ad hoc network formation within shipping containers to provide location and condition without mention of container security or locking. Neher, in U.S. Pat. No. 7,242,322, Security Tracker, discloses a covert tracking system for monitoring location and condition for later download, without mention of security or locking of the container.